Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    September 5, 2012 3:30am-4:00am PDT

3:30 am
>> any objection? ok. anyone else in this section? >> yes, please. >> the text varies considerably at the bottom of page 4 through page 5. at the bottom of page 4 there are instances where the task force is one word. can we separate those? and there are actually three par graphs at the bottom of page 4. the first paragraph that starts on 5 and the paragraph on 5 that's "in decision." i would break those out and put those in a separate section following called community and media outreach. >> hold on, too many ideas at first so on the task force can you do a search for find all and then replace so that anywhere it's task force as one it gets replaced with task
3:31 am
space force? >> ok. >> ok? you're good there. >> uh-huh. >> ok? continue? >> so there were three par graphs that i called out that i would put in a separate section to follow and obviously we number. >> so again, are they factualy incorrect? >> they're not factually incorrect -- >> it's just a speech preference? >> no, it's about collecting -- >> i understand that. your proposal is to rewrite, correct? >> not to rewrite. it's to take those three and put it in a different place to gather those concepts in just one place. >> hold that thought. everybody clear on the proposal?
3:32 am
everybody clear on it? mr. schreiber in or out? >> out. >> mr. mondejar? >> no. >> ms. lam? >> no. >> mr. leigh? >> no. >> mr. alonso? >> no. >> ms. tidwell? >> no. >> ok, next? >> i would add an sentence, the task force received various coverage, including neighborhood blogs and ethnic media. that's not anywhere in here. i think it should be. >> ok, one more time. hold on. ms. tidwell? >> aapologize -- -- apologies. >> that's ok. get ready. >> where am i putting it? >> where are you suggest something >> ok, page 5 just before the task force was initially allocated. >> so the top of the page? >> ok. >> ok?
3:33 am
go. >> the task force received considerable media coverage -- >> hold on. >> i'm a lawyer. i'm not good at this. i have it. >> the task force received considerable media coverage in various outlets, including mainstream media, newspapers and blogs and ethnic media. yep. that's it. thank you. >> ok? thank you very much. hold on. ms. tidwell? >> i just had a question. the q.r. facebook and twitter media. what q.r. stands for? >> quick response. >> is it ok if i spell that out or is it just?
3:34 am
>> yes, you could do a parens. >> is it two words? >> it's two words, yes. >> i'm not young anymore. >> so ms. tidwell? in the paragraph that begins "the task force was initially allocated -- the middle of the paragraph where it says granted additional funds through the board of supervisors, strike county. it should be city clerk's office. >> take out the whole city clerk's office? >> it wasn't board of supervisors so what's actually correct? >> the city county clerk's office. the money came from the board of supervisors. >> i have a way to streamline that >> that's ok. that's fine. just strike it. you good, ms. tidwell? >> yeah, the only other question i had was on the newspapers. i thought at one point we'd added the african-american numerous. but --
3:35 am
>> ok. anything else from this section? mr. pilpel? >> the printed version that we have, the top of page 5 and the third -- well, the second paragraph that begins on 5, the beginning and october 2011, it's redundant about the four community meetings. >> i'm sorry, what are you suggesting get stricken? >> one of the references. perhaps the second? well, it doesn't read well. that's my point. >> that's fine. is it factually incorrect? >> knost -- no, it's redoesn't ant and reperspective -- repit active. >> mr. alonso? >> no. >> mr. leigh? >> i'm fine with striking the second one. >> miss melara?
3:36 am
>> yes. >> ms. lam? >> yes. >> mr. schreiber? >> yes. >> so what is stricken is the second reference to the four meetings. mr. pilpel? >> to be clear, the second reference being however the task force conducted and just delete the entire sentence? >> but we're not going to rewrite it. >> well, i can't answer that question. >> ok, leave it as it is. that's fine. next. >> i have grammatical changes here. what do you want me to do with them? >> we agreed -- you said let's do the grammatical at the end. >> ok. so i will provide that to someone during the break and it will get looked at. great. cool. >> anything else in this next? ok, moving then to page 6, which is the end of that last
3:37 am
section. at the very top of that page. substantial amounts of public comment. we've already referenced the apox mat and specific amount of public comment and extent of written comment. i don't think those two sentences are needed now. >> will the chair, on page 4 -- >> on page 4? >> yeah, i'm sorry, we -- >> hold on one second. let's finish this thought. >> the sentences i'm highlighted. extensive written comment -- >> correct, strike them because we've already made reference to the amount of both that we have. >> ok. >> ok. anything else in this section? >> and you were asking if there was an oh,? right? anything else in this next? >> yes, the "in decision"
3:38 am
paragraph -- inaddition paragraph at the end. the date is march 2012, not 2011. >> anything else in this section? this is where we insert the final vote. >> do you think you could add a sentence at the very -- >> that's right, we wanted to say -- >> what language would you suggest? >> the task force with -- with a vote of -- adopt add plan on that right? ok, i'll do that later. >> very good. anything else in this next? before we go back to page 4. is that correct? >> yes. >> just on the sentence on the
3:39 am
issue of section 2, we did eliminate the names of the people and how members voted, but i was thinking that we might want to just eliminate the 621 and just leave it as the task force decided. unless it is required for us to put in that particular vote. we'd have so many different votes that i don't think it's necessary to say how we voted. i mean, we had actually decided not to even disclose the votes. >> actually, we agreed that we would lift a statement out of our minutes and this is a statement out of our minutes. if you're saying change it, we'll entertain that proposal. >> yes, i would like to -- >> so the proposal is to strike the reference to the 6-1 vote. mr. alonso? yes, yes. >> mr. leigh? >> yes. >> ms. lam? >> i'm ok to include it.
3:40 am
so no. >> ms. mondejar? >> no. >> mr. pilpel? >> no. i think it's important to include. >> thank you. mr. schreiber? >> no. >> and ms. tidwell? >> uh, no. >> ok, then we'll include it. thank you. next. all right so we're now at section 4. schb the map and plan -- >> i'm going to type in mine for one and four. while we do that can we decide where we're going to put the final map and the other thing? but i'm going to type in mine -- mine on one and four. >> thank you. do you have a suggestion on where to put the final map? doesn't matter? very good. any points, point of view where the final map goes? there was one proposal from mr. pilpel to put it in the first
3:41 am
item in the appendixes along with the descriptions of each district, along with individual district maps. >> exhibit a, exhibit b. >> yes. any objection to that? >> yes. >> ok. >> one point of clarification. i would recommend that the findings regarding the population deviation be included in the report itself rather than in the abend i said. >> very good. ok. so we'll have district one -- i'm sorry, the findings and deviations as they are listed here. member tidwell is adding her two sections, one and four. presuming there are no changes or edits to the others. maybe not. mr. schreiber? >> just under district two. including d.-1 is one of the
3:42 am
options to be consistent with the discussion on d-5. >> ok, member advertise well, sorry to disrupt your insertion but can you jump down to district two for a moment and the vista and whether to include and the vista in d-1 so d 2 and d 5. thank you. mr. pill pell? >> -- pilpel? >> i'm not sure wife we have reasons and are adoption. >> i was going to get to that. any other edits ms. lam? >> after ms. tidwell adds hers, i want to make it consistent with the format. >> very good. anyone else? >> yes, we still have the question of district seven, drafted by member tidwell? >> we'll come back to that that moment. we just need for ms. tidwell to
3:43 am
catch up with us. she's entering her two districts. while she's doing that on the heading, on the reasons for adoption, that should not be there. we aren't offering reasons for adoption. >> i propose that sorry, district considerations as opposed to findings, which would more suggest the one to five. >> sure. >> ok, so going one, typing in four also -- >> hold on. is there anything in three? ok, you're going to begin to type in four? that's fine. >> yeah. >> five is fine and then when you're ready, there are edits to six, so that, again, it is parallel in construction and
3:44 am
consistent. >> and are you going to want seven too? >> yes. >> ok, let me do that.
3:45 am
>> thank you. >> ok, sorry, i'm ready. >> it's ok. so that was four -- you finished with four? >> sorry, no, i was doing more -- >> let me suggest this in the interests of time. you keep working on four. if you would take your six down to her that would be fantastic. as she's doing four and then moving to six, if you would refer to the individual member submissions. let's quickly visit that and determine a, whether there's con tension around any
3:46 am
individuals. the document is the one-pager, which is the individual submissions of member leigh, member mondejar and member pilpel. everybody with me? >> yes. >> ok, so member leigh's submission is there consensus around that, that it can therefore be added to the body? representative of the whole. and let me just say, if there are any questions, it's not an effort to convince you, it's simply stated in this section. so we don't need to debate if you agree with some of it, most of it or modify it by eight sentences. no need to go down that path. mr. alonso? >> i would prefer that it remain separate. >> ok, thank you. ms. melara. >> i'd include it. >> ms. lam? >> include.
3:47 am
>> ms. mondejar? >> include. >> mr. pill -- pilpel? >> i think i would include it except for the last sentence. >> we're not going to it. in or out? does that change your vote is the question? fully appreciating your point of view. does that change your vote? >> i stated my point of view. that's the best i can do. >> what's your vote? >> i've stated my point of view. i would include it except for the last snefpblets that's it. -- sentence. that's it. >> mr. schreiber? >> yes, on balance, yes. >> ms. tidwell? >> i apologize for -- >> sorry, the question are we looking at the individual member submissions and whether there's consensus around them sufficient to include them in the body or keep them as
3:48 am
individual submissions and the first one we're visiting is member leigh's. >> i apologize member leevement i will go with the group. >> so it will be included in the body. >> safety concerns in the neighborhood and whether it should be made wholeok. i just wanted to make sure. mr. mcdonnell: it will be included in its entirety. you don't have to do it now. >> going back to district 7 -- mr. mcdonnell: when can you work? during the break. he will get that to you. mr. schreiber: yes. mr. pilpel: pass. ms. lam: the outreach section? mr. mcdonnell: these are
3:49 am
lessons learned and recommendations. this is if they go into the body or remain as an individual. ms. lam: can we included in the full body? mr. mcdonnell: all of these are being determined -- considered to determine if they go into the fall letter or if they remain as individual insertions. ms. lam: full body. ms. melara: no, because i think it is included in the body. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. mr. leigh: yes. mr. alonso: no. ms. tidwell: yes.
3:50 am
>> i was going to make the same observation. parts of this are already there. it is augmenting it a little bit to get what is not there included. mr. pilpel: if we are not able to edit, i would not include it in this way. mr. mcdonnell: ok. thank you. ms. mondejar: included in the body of the report. maybe at the last sentence. -- edit the last sentence. mr. mcdonnell: your response but the break for editing. ok. thank you. on mr. pilpel's?
3:51 am
everyone take a moment to read this suggestion.
3:52 am
>> the question you're going to call is all or nothing? mr. mcdonnell: that is correct. mr. pilpel: -- mr. schreiber: no. ms. mondejar: the question is to include it all or not? um -- yes. ms. lam: no. ms. melara: no, because most of it is already included in the report and some of the things that were not, i think we did not vote on them. mr. leigh: i am going to say
3:53 am
yes. on the whole, i think it is fine. i appreciate member pilpel's attempts to respond to the issues we had. ms. tidwell: no. mr. mcdonnell: ok. it will remain in the individual section. ok. at the break on this section, mrs. mondejar will edit and give to ms. tidwell. the addition will be at tit -- added to lessons learned and recommendations. ms. tidwell: clarification. where do we want -- we want to include this at the end of the current submissions so we have lessons learned from the task force as part 6 and 7 as
3:54 am
individual recommendations? ok. >> i was motioning to her that i have this in a separate document. i can do cutting and pasting for suggestions as to how we can blend the two. mr. mcdonnell: ok. very good. was there anything else that you needed for -- the district considerations? ms. tidwell: just a district 7. mr. mcdonnell: ok. all right. that takes us to section 5. and the -- yes? >> can i propose some introductory language for the
3:55 am
very beginning, to make clear what the findings are? i would propose something along the lines of, seven districts-1, 3, 5, 8, 9, and 11. mr. mcdonnell: ok. >> have population deviations between 1% and 5% of the statistical mean. these deviations were necessary to keep recognize neighborhoods intact in those districts and surrounding areas.
3:56 am
>> [inaudible] [laughter] >> i can believe -- delete. mr. mcdonnell: ok. mr. alonso: we did miss one thing for section 4. on district 9, we did put it north of the park in district 9. mr. mcdonnell: that is a point of fact. >> you're talking about district considerations. >> it is in the 11 write-up.
3:57 am
are we putting them in twice? >> across all of them, we had -- >> my point is there is a bunch of redundancy. everything should show up in five. if it is stated once, the point is captured. are you satisfied -- >> it even says mclaren park south. it would make sense for the reader that mclaren park north would be included in the section. mr. mcdonnell: ok. sure. >> the web would resolve that is to put the text in the district where it ended up.
3:58 am
that is just the way i would do it. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. we are resolved. ok. with that intro the city attorney just offered, what follows is -- how would you say it in court? >> exhibit a. mr. mcdonnell: recognized neighborhoods. that goes tehre as -- there as a replacement. the intro to those sections is correct. district 1 and the deviation. district to come a deviation.
3:59 am
that is probably a break. >> you're suggesting that? the neighbors are listed on exhibit a? mr. mcdonnell: i was being facetious, but thank you for being literal in your interpretation. now, where district 1 and the deviation, the bullets then get replaced with -- >> can we do a recap of where we are? then we can go back and fix the neighborhoods. >> you lost me. >> the percentages for each district. mr. mcdonnell: ok.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on